Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science fiction or fantasy. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Science fiction and fantasy|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science fiction or fantasy. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Science fiction and fantasy

Sonic screwdriver

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of this article is WP:OR. It is sourced to self-published such as wowstuff.co.uk or fan sites. A WP:BEFORE search brings up WP:PLOT summary or brief mentions and qualifies as a WP:GNG fail. If it were to be completely rewritten with proper sources it would still be at best a section in another article. Jontesta (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of content here which lacking in-line citations, but most is based on primary sources. So I do not believe that WP:OR is actually a big problem, although I believe that that kind of content could need quite a bit of trimming. I do believe there is easily enough in secondary sources to establish notability, taking together sources like The Economic Times, Gizmondo, Engineering & Technology, The Language of Touch, and especially Gender and the Quest in British Science Fiction Television at a number of places. Shouldn't at least the latter have shown up as something easily recognizebly other than plot-summary in a proper WP:BEFORE search? Daranios (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a brief search and found sources relating to fan reactions to the Screwdriver's various redesigns for days. I had more success searching "Sonic Screwdriver" and then inserting the name of a specific incarnation of the Doctor afterwards, which yielded results for a particular incarnation of the Screwdriver. I will also note that the Screwdriver became so ubiquitous that it was added to the Oxford Dictionary of English. [1][2] I additionally found multiple GBooks hits that looked strong, but admittedly a lot of them were paywalled, so I couldn't gauge them very effectively. Either way there seems to be a lot of significant coverage. This article's in rough shape rn, but there is room for improvement. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios' sourcing. Can you share how you found so many hits when the nominator's BEFORE search did not? Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Economic Times and Radio Times sources present in the article indicate that changes to the sonic screwdriver get press coverage. There are also eight pages on the sonic screwdriver in Doctor Who: Impossible Worlds, a non-fiction art collection. Toughpigs (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antonina Liedtke

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She is an author of a sole short story; that story is notable (see pl:CyberJoly Drim which I just expanded; it won awards in Poland and was subject to literary criticism) - but she herself has not done anything else to merit a stand-alone article in an encyclopedia. This article should redirect to her short story article, once it is created on en wiki, per WP:NOTINHERITED, for now it could be soft-deleted by redirecting to the page about most notable award that her story got (Janusz A. Zajdel Award per WP:ATD-R. I'll add I've done extensive BEFORE while expanding article about her story on pl wiki and I cannot find anything that discusses her outside the analysis of her short story; the few biographical information we have about her come from a short bio note on a page of a publishing company she works or worked for at some point. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science fiction and fantasy, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note that, as WP:NOTINHERITED itself points out, the "not inherited" principle explicitly does not apply to the relationship between aurhors and their works. For more on this, see WP:NAUTHOR. Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gbooks has some coverage [3], but most are just names in what appear to be a directory... I don't find enough coverage to write an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the article on her story exists in en.wiki, then redirect to that article. While the story's article does not exist, our encyclopedia is the better for having this article on a notable story's author. A reader interested in winners of the Janusz A. Zajdel Award should be offered one blue link for "1999, short story* rather than two red links. PamD 08:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD Template ill does the job well - one red, one blue: CyberJoly Drim [pl] _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I don't see any reason to delete the article. Yes, she is an author known only for one story. Nevertheless, she received three awards for this story, and the story itself (published in 1999) is still the subject of critical and literary analysis (see pl:CyberJoly Drim). Redirecting to Janusz A. Zajdel Award is a bad idea - the article about the award contains no information about the author, except that she received the award. --Teukros (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay Fetish Battle Drones

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Of the included sources, the only one that is a full length review is not from a reliable source. The rest are just small blurbs that could not really be considered a full review. Searches using both names the film was released under did not turn up any kind of coverage or reviews in reliable sources that would indicate being able to pass WP:NFILM. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Didn't find any in-depth reliable coverage either. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the coverage on the BFI website is quite significant; review at Horror News (https://horrornews.net/95064/film-review-cosplay-fetish-battle-drones-2013/). Significant coverage here: http://www.electricsheepmagazine.co.uk/2014/05/28/sci-fi-london-2014/. Cannot really access the rest, except a review on a blog and the interview in the San Francisco Bay Guardian. The director has no page yet. A DVD exists. Another interview with the director can help develop the page: http://www.searchmytrash.com/cgi-bin/articlecreditsb.pl?gregggolding(4-14) for verification and production. All in all, I consider it's a notable cult film. I didn't search very hard and might look for more if I have time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ http://www.silveragepoets.com/music-and-else ;https://www.mrman.com/b-movie-boys-sci-fi-sexiness-in-cosplay-fetish-battle-drones---6428 (caution: might be not safe for work; can be considered expert blog; see author) ; https://projectedfigures.com/2014/12/31/struggled-reagans-2013/ (might be considered Expert SPS) ; or https://www.mondo-digital.com/sickpicks32.html (same comment). Mentioned there: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/01/001-trolling-is-possibly-the-craziest-movie-ever-made-about-the-internet/ All in all, the film does pass GNG and/or NFILM imv. FWIW I am willing to add those sources to the page and cleanup and expand the page with that material or with other sources that will be suggested.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A lot of those sources are ones I found in my searches that I either did not consider to be reliable sources and/or not full-length reviews - many of these are just a paragraph or less, which I don't see as passing WP:NFILM's requirements of a "full-length" review. But, I would be happy for others to weigh in on whether or not they would be valid for establishing notability. Rorshacma (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Regarding HorrorNews.Net, for example, it's a full review (in their style) and the site is considered reliable by the project Horror (see also two threads at the Reliable sources noticeboard, the latest one insisting that especially pre-2020 reviews (roughly; after which they seem to have accepted to make paid reviews) may be considered acceptable; and that particular review is to terribly negative that I don't suspect a minute it was not independent). Many of the other include a paragraph (significant) or less, true, but some, more (see BFI website, which I find significant). I included a few sources that are obviously not independent, to show the article can be improved/verified. I should have organised this or maybe edited the page directly, but I started here, "first to knock, first admitted". Again, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Viking

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay-like article that relies on WP:SYNTH from mostly unreliable sources. The sources that are reliable are not about Fantasy Vikings, but only used to support some part or argument within the article. Some of this info can be relevant additions in Vikings, Viking Age, Viking revival or historical fantasy, if it's not already there, but Fantasy Viking fails WP:GNG. There may be justification for some kind of broader article about the reception history of Vikings or the Viking Age in popular culture, but I don't think this article can be transformed into that. Ffranc (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I once talked about the title of this article at Talk:Fantasy Viking#Move. I don't think "fantasy viking" is a good title. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, wow the sourcing in this article is a lot worse than I remember. I see why this was nominated for deletion. I took a look at earlier versions of the article to see if maybe things were better and they're not. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Vikings in popular culture. Surprisingly this title is indeed in use, e.g. in this PhD thesis. But considering some of the problematic sourcing, starting with the content which can be tracked to reliable sources and putting that to the parent topic first, and thinking about spinning it out if ever necessary later, would be my preferred course of action. Daranios (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vikings#In modern popular culture - This was likely spun out of that section of the main article, and contains essentially the same information. However, given the poor sources being used (not counting the obviously unreliable ones, the sources are generally on real Vikings, or on a very specific aspect of Viking popular culture like their inaccurate helmets), it was not ready to be split out into a separate article. I would suggest redirecting back to the relevant section of the main article, and working on improving that section to determine if a spinout article could work. If one is eventually spun back out, it definitely needs a better article title, though. Rorshacma (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd agree that it feels like synth. There's already a sizable section in the Viking article, not really sure what should be merged - the sources are largely poor. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm, as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The sourcing is generally below our standards, but redirects are cheap, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD'ed in 2007 and 2016 (both closed as keep), I closed the 2020 AfD as "delete", the article was later draftified but then moved back to main space without much change nearly 3 years later. My WP:G4 speedy nomination was declined with the note "this may yet need to face a 3rd AfD". WP:Notability per WP:GNG is still in question. This article should either be fully and officially be re-accepted in WP's D&D coverage including being listed in Template:D&D topics, or be re-deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources added to the article since the last AFD, ~~but failing that merge to Centaurs in popular culture~~. BOZ (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Centaurs in popular culture - The non-primary sourced material is extremely minimal, being largely either the same very obvious "Centaurs are based on mythological Centaurs" statement that was deemed insufficient in the last AFD, or a couple of sentences in what are essentially game guides. Some are literally just one-sentence mentions stating that "Centaurs are half-horse", making this look like a case of WP:REFBOMBING. There is nothing to indicate that the D&D specific version of centaurs either pass the WP:GNG, nor are any more notable than any of the other entries in the Centaurs in popular culture list that would justify making the existing entry any longer. Rorshacma (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ per Rorshacma; once the excessive details from D&D handbooks is discounted, there is not enough coverage for a separate article. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one accepts (and obviously many do not) that the topic is 'centaur', then the D&D sources are themselves non-trivial reliable sources independent of 'centaur' as a topic. Now, that may take a bit to wrap one's mind around, but centaur is a public domain concept, used in plenty of contemporary fiction and entertainment media. Why is what Gary Gygax & co. wrote problematic, but what Rick Riordan wrote acceptable? It is nothing more than an artifact of how the topic of 'centaur' is split up into multiple articles. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an article on centaurs in Rick Riordan's books, I would presumably vote to redirect that as well. I don't see how "D&D didn't invent centaurs" is supposed to prove "D&D handbooks are independent coverage of the topic of centaurs in D&D". Walsh90210 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enough non-handbook (and non-WotC) sources have been presented that I'm striking my redirect vote. Some merge might still be reasonable; that could be proposed later. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the small coverage in book sources + more extensive sources in various web article like this one, which do provide commentary on their relevance. Failing that, merge to Centaurs in popular culture - there is new content now not present at the target, and I plan to add some more. Daranios (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That article is simply a summary of the information about Centaurs taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros, and offers no actual commentary or analysis. It is simply a summary of the official information presented in the book. The same goes for this article, which is the only other one in the search that provides more than minor coverage - its simply summarizing the exact content from the official book, without a single bit of commentary or analysis. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the book, but there does appear to be commentary ("For players entering a D&D campaign with a lot of fierce adventure, a Pheres Raider might be a good choice." with a link to an article about Icewind Dale). It ain't deep, but secondary sources don't need to be to be, well, secondary sources. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is yet another iteration of the prejudice against game content in mythical creatures articles. The topic of this is article 'centaur', not 'centaurs in Dungeons & Dragons' but is maintained in a separate article due to SIZE and other considerations. Merging it all (not "delete by calling it a merge and eventually deleting all of the content") to Centaur would be most appropriate, but failing that, keeping it as a separate article focusing on the game aspect of the same topic is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Centaurs get their own heading in Keith Ammann's The Monsters Know What They're Doing, which in combination with the content already in the article is good enough for me. Someone might want to add content from TMKWTD, though. BD2412 T 17:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simple gamecruft with no real reception worth noting. Wikipedia is not FANDOM, which would normally host articles like this. Centaurs in popular culture is equally as bad, so I don't support redirecting there, and I am not swayed by ScreenRant, a content farm site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Centaurs in popular culture (or Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons), or merge as compromise. Several sources do not meet our WP:RS standards, and in total they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. I appreciate the editors who are striving for WP:CONSENSUS by suggesting more than one !vote preference. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV is present, merging is impossible at this point due to the size of the article. Agree with @Jclemens basing on this essay. Vorann Gencov (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly, coverage before 5th edition probably doesn't get over the WP:N bar. But there is now a surprisingly large amount of material covering this topic. An entire article on the latest iteration of this. Another article which analyzes a primary source on the topic. Third-party coverage of the topic [4] exists. Just the 3 secondary sources I've listed puts it over the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:VALNET Screen Rant does not contribute to the notability of a subject. Is there an idea of RPGBot being notable? It seems very much like a blog site and I'm not sure on the reliability of the specific author. I am also not certain on the reliability Belloflostsouls, though that one at least seems to be part of a company. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I mentioned above, that particular Screenrant article is nothing but a shortened rewording of the official content taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros. Which is pretty typical of the kind of low-quality churnalism that Valent sources tend to produce, that offers no actual commentary or analysis of their own, and simply regurgitates official information as an "article". Rorshacma (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:VALNET specifically calls Screen Rant reliable enough for things other than BLPs. There is certainly no consensus in the RfC that it cannot be used to meet WP:N. BoLS is certainly meets the Wikipedia definition of reliable. RPGnet is a WP:RS/SPS case. I quite comfortable saying the author is widely acknowledged as an expert and is well-known for his work. But that one is debatable. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming." The only exceptions are when there's already significant reception that Valnet can be used to augment, or if it's from TheGamer post August 2020, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Screen Rant does not help meet Notability, and per Rorshacma, it's only rewording official content, and not offering its own perspective, meaning that even if it did it isn't saying much either way.
The RfC on Screen Rant, the only discussion on that specific site AFAICT, didn't reach that conclusion. I'm not sure where that line came from, but the specific discussion on this topic didn't get there. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoLS seems to be mostly discussing dev info, and any Reception seems to largely pertain to how it impacts the gameplay of the specific game. That kind of discussion is iffy, since unless it's something like Brawl Meta Knight, it typically isn't able to prove notability independently of the subject, as the discussion is entirely around its association with the subject. As for RPGnet, I can't speak on the author since I have no idea about anything related to them, so I'll leave consensus on that source with editors more experienced than me on that matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BoLS article is solely about Centaurs in D&D. I don't know how it could get any more on point than that. It is specific to 5e, but I don't see how that's relevant unless you're arguing that we can't have this article but could have one on the narrower topic of Centaurs in 5e D&D. And I do know a lot about RPGNet. All I can say with certainty is that they have a reasonable claim to being an expert in the field. I think I've beat this topic to death, so unless specifically requested, I'll drop out of the discussion and let others have their say. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. The bulk of the sources presented are VALNET sources, which are do not contribute to the GNG bar. Most other sources are minimal for the benefits of this article, and I'm not seeing much presented here in terms of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jessup (writer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a writer of speculative fiction. I have found and added one reference, but it is either an interview or an article by a friend (named author who introduces the article, but the bulk of it is by Jessup). The article already references the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which I think is a reliable source, but as the only reference which demonstrates notability I don't think it's fully evidenced. The article only needs a couple of reviews from reliable sources to meet WP:NAUTHOR, but I haven't been able to find any. Unless anyone else can, I don't think the article meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Two book reviews [5] and [6], there might be more. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've added the PW review to the article. Haven't added the other as it is just one sentence. Tacyarg (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one sentence? Try [7] Geschichte (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added that to the article. Tacyarg (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw (as nom) - two reviews found by Oaktree b, article meets WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We still need at least some material to source the biographical stuff. Or, it could just be removed.

I found more reviews, including another one in PW and one in The Future Fire [8] Here is a shorter one in Reactor (magazine). The next one is from Wired, but is primary, starting off with "My friend Paul Jessup": [9] Had you heard about Werewolf News? Me neither. (Blog, not reliable.) Geschichte (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, one of the above-cited reviews is a Kirkus Indie review, which does not count towards notability per WP:KIRKUS. On the other hand, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, mentioned in the nomination, is most certainly a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the earlier mentioned reviews, Publishers Weekly reviewed more of his novels (link 1 and 2) while I also found other reviews out there (link 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) along with the previously mentioned short interview in Wired and this article in the Washington Post. Overall, there are enough reviews and press coverage to meet our notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions